It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ultimate factories-the M1 Abrams

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: buddah6
Our allies just watch our equipment to improve their own tanks ...case in point is the Leopard 2A7+.


I love the Leopard's modular design. Pop out a broken 'system' module and drop in a new one...tank up and running in hours not days. Canada bought some old Leopards and it was one of the best decisions they have made for the military, imo.+



Link
www.youtube.com...


It always looks a bit of a shell trap under the front of the turret to me. We had Danish leopards on overwatch a few times and there wasn't so much as a peep out of terry.
edit on 1821642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Agreed. Can't really call the Leopard a best of class tank. The Israeli's were selling some used tanks too but they had high mileage and some odd holes here and there. The Leopards from the Netherlands had been sitting in a warm warehouse for years with low mileage. They did smell of Tulips for some odd reason...



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
I don't think its a waste at all, you showed a lot of pictures of them destroyed, but go back and telling me how many of those soldiers made it out alive. Having first hand knowledge on these tanks they are meant for the crew to survived not the vehicle, they sure beat the first ones I trained on the old M60A3 tanks.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: 19KTankCommander


…they sure beat the first ones…

Yah, tanks beat up other countries… thats more what I meant by a waste.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: buddah6
Our allies just watch our equipment to improve their own tanks ...case in point is the Leopard 2A7+.


I love the Leopard's modular design. Pop out a broken 'system' module and drop in a new one...tank up and running in hours not days. Canada bought some old Leopards and it was one of the best decisions they have made for the military, imo.+



Link
www.youtube.com...

I find it interesting how complex tanks have become. Most modern tanks have modular components for rapid maintenance. One area that is in need of improvement is the engines. Gas turbines are gas hogs but give good HP/ton ratios. Diesels are heavy and only produce about 80% of the power of the turbine but has better mileage. It would seem that all aspect of tank performance is a compromise.

The weapons on the Challenger, Leopard and Abrams all use the 120 mm smooth bore guns so I assume their ability to engage targets is roughly the same. The LeClerc and the new Russian T95(?) have a 125 mm gun with unknown performance and range. Both have auto-loaders with a three man crew which have unknown benefit.

The Poles have a new tank prototype and it will be interesting to see how it develops.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: buddah6
Our allies just watch our equipment to improve their own tanks ...case in point is the Leopard 2A7+.


I love the Leopard's modular design. Pop out a broken 'system' module and drop in a new one...tank up and running in hours not days. Canada bought some old Leopards and it was one of the best decisions they have made for the military, imo.+



Link
www.youtube.com...

I find it interesting how complex tanks have become. Most modern tanks have modular components for rapid maintenance. One area that is in need of improvement is the engines. Gas turbines are gas hogs but give good HP/ton ratios. Diesels are heavy and only produce about 80% of the power of the turbine but has better mileage. It would seem that all aspect of tank performance is a compromise.

The weapons on the Challenger, Leopard and Abrams all use the 120 mm smooth bore guns so I assume their ability to engage targets is roughly the same. The LeClerc and the new Russian T95(?) have a 125 mm gun with unknown performance and range. Both have auto-loaders with a three man crew which have unknown benefit.

The Poles have a new tank prototype and it will be interesting to see how it develops.


Challenger is rifled. It caused some issues with the sharing of ammunition I believe.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

I thought it was the same Rein Metal 120 mm as in the Abrams... Let me call my son and check. Be back soon.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: sg1642

I thought it was the same Rein Metal 120 mm as in the Abrams... Let me call my son and check. Be back soon.
I think the leopard has the same main gun and they can share ammunition because of it.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Yeah they are working on upgrading the 120mm gun to 140mm.

en.wikipedia.org...
"KWS I was the replacement of the L44 120 mm cannon with the 55-calibre model, KWS II was a modernization program that became the Leopard 2A5, and KWS III was the development of a new turret including a 140 mm smoothbore weapon system and an automatic loader, which would have resulted in the reduction of the crew size to 3 soldiers. The final project design contained a lateral loading mechanism and had the main gun moved in the left turret side. Ammunition load for the main gun was 32 rounds, which were stored in a large ammunition bunker, covering the full turret rear. Moving the ammunition out of the crew's compartment would have resulted in a higher survivability in case of a penetration. The planned protection level was to be equal to the Leopard 2A5 or better. Command and control of the tank was supposed to be improved by the introduction of the ISIS system in its latest version. The KWS III was not adopted then, but development continued on the 140 mm weapon system, with Rheinmetall coordinating with Royal Ordnance from the UK and GIAT from France. To test out the weapon's capabilities, the 140 mm gun was mounted to a Leopard 2. The tank was not equipped with the new turret armour of the KWS III improvement program, nor with an automatic loader, and it also still had the electro-hydraulic turret drive. To cope with the extra weight of the main gun, counterweights were added to the turret rear. The tests were partially successful, with the gun showing superior penetration power, but also some difficulties with the handling."

Not sure where they are at now with it...



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

edit on 22-2-2015 by buddah6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: sg1642

I thought it was the same Rein Metal 120 mm as in the Abrams... Let me call my son and check. Be back soon.
He didn't know.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: sg1642

I thought it was the same Rein Metal 120 mm as in the Abrams... Let me call my son and check. Be back soon.
He didn't know.


Either way they both get the job done and get it done well.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

all the pics were of the same tanks and most of them looked like fuel fires. I saw two pictures where it looked like rounds were cooking off so I would say most of the tanks crew lived.

I know there are a bunch of RPG-29's in Syria so maybe they are coming to a battle field near us soon



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: intrptr

all the pics were of the same tanks and most of them looked like fuel fires. I saw two pictures where it looked like rounds were cooking off so I would say most of the tanks crew lived.

I know there are a bunch of RPG-29's in Syria so maybe they are coming to a battle field near us soon



What I never knew and found out recently, was the fact an RPG 29 pierced the front of a challenger hull and the driver lost his foot because of it. That's a scary thought.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

the rpg-29 is no joke.

en.wikipedia.org...

but at the same time its amazing(as crappy as it is) he lost a foot, and is still alive.

a real impressive show for the challenger



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: sg1642

the rpg-29 is no joke.

en.wikipedia.org...

but at the same time its amazing(as crappy as it is) he lost a foot, and is still alive.

a real impressive show for the challenger



Well it's more of an impressive show from the RPG. To penetrate the hull of a challenger that's fitted with reactive armour isn't an easy task. One took 14 RPGs and a Milan missile and was back in service after a few hours. Another took more than 70 direct hits from RPGs and kept fighting. There has only been one actually destroyed in combat and it was another challenger that did it. The one that struck the IED wasn't carrying chobham armour for some reason as far as I remember. So for one single warhead to do what no other projectile has managed is pretty impressive and pretty scary too. The RPG 29 must be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to get a hold of for potential foes than a Kornet or Milan.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Incidents like that make a strong case for the active defence systems the IDF are using in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
Incidents like that make a strong case for the active defence systems the IDF are using in my opinion.

This morning, I googled RPG-29 and found myself going off on a tangent. I became interested in the Russian Ratnik program. It was the attempt to improve their military equipment.

The first thing I noticed was the BMP-4's improvements. The most obvious was the addition of what appears a long barreled gun along side the main gun. This would make it's bite worse than the BMP-1&2s were! Does anyone have any additional data on this battle buggy?

Next was the AK-12 rifle in 5.56x39 caliber. It looks like a move toward the M-4/M-16 theory of light ammo size.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: sg1642
Incidents like that make a strong case for the active defence systems the IDF are using in my opinion.

This morning, I googled RPG-29 and found myself going off on a tangent. I became interested in the Russian Ratnik program. It was the attempt to improve their military equipment.

The first thing I noticed was the BMP-4's improvements. The most obvious was the addition of what appears a long barreled gun along side the main gun. This would make it's bite worse than the BMP-1&2s were! Does anyone have any additional data on this battle buggy?

Next was the AK-12 rifle in 5.56x39 caliber. It looks like a move toward the M-4/M-16 theory of light ammo size.


It's a 100mm cannon that doubles up as a launcher for ATGM.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: sg1642
Incidents like that make a strong case for the active defence systems the IDF are using in my opinion.

This morning, I googled RPG-29 and found myself going off on a tangent. I became interested in the Russian Ratnik program. It was the attempt to improve their military equipment.

The first thing I noticed was the BMP-4's improvements. The most obvious was the addition of what appears a long barreled gun along side the main gun. This would make it's bite worse than the BMP-1&2s were! Does anyone have any additional data on this battle buggy?

Next was the AK-12 rifle in 5.56x39 caliber. It looks like a move toward the M-4/M-16 theory of light ammo size.


It's a 100mm cannon that doubles up as a launcher for ATGM.


It's not an ATGM launcher...google BMP-4 and look at the smaller barrel next to the main gun.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join